Pakistan's ISI chief heads to U.S. as ties flounder

[muse]

On the AQ and the dismantling part, to take the liberty, I would like to ask you a question back. Who and which particular institution in Pakistan actually loses if AQ and the assets are gone (?) and Sir, these are well groomed and seasoned assets mind you. That is where the dichotomy of the objectives is. And amidst this nice little strategy, who actually loses then?

Guest01

I'm a huge fan of Thomas kuhn and Karl Popper, we of course find it very difficult indeed even impossible, to formulate and pose questions whose answers we do not know - it's not possible -- ISI as patrons of AQ? that's too much of stretch, actually AQ is an enemy -- of this I am confident of this e but what I am not sure of is why the disrupt, dismantle and destroy thing is not an entirely Pakistani owned enterprise - there's a lot of conjecture and I have not come across any I can have a measure of confidence in one way or the other.

 

[53fd]

It's worth pointing out that US papers, certainly not the mouth piece if the US intelligence community, the NYT, have had any comment on the Pasha visit - readers will agree that this is itself, rather curious -- Pakistani papers, particularly the Dawn, have printed articles that the mission of Gen. Pasha was successful in that a anonymous US official is quoted suggesting that the intelligence relationship is now back on track -- now if it turns out that the Pakistan army, while saying it will not allow clandestine CIA operations on Pakistani soil, will have agreed to all CIA conditions for the resumption of military aid, then perhaps the sense of betrayal within the Pakistani population, as expressed in the media, will increase and be sharper - after all, it's not like all media can be threatened or all journalists murdered?

You're assuming that a successful mission is one where Pakistan has managed to convince the US to resume military aid. That's a pretty 'wild' assumption. Even in the toughest of times in the relationships of the CIA & the ISI, despite there being numerous conflicts, there have been points of mutual interest for both the agencies, so a successful mission for me means working together to achieve those points of mutual interest. A failed mission would have been one where the points of mutual interest could not be worked on together, & that the relationship between the CIA & ISI would be precariously close to completely breaking down, case in point being the aftermath of the Raymond Davis incident, & the OBL raid. There is no indication that this Pasha trip was aimed at convincing the US to resume their aid to Pakistan, because the aid has quite frankly, been a curse to the Pakistani military in many ways.

The higher ranking officials of both the CIA & the ISI realize that despite there being many conflicts of interest, both the agencies need to work together to come up with the end-game in Afghanistan, & that a 'divorce' would be a complete disaster for the region.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The manner in which the US expects the Pakistani dignitaries to go hotfoot for every little thing to the US does appear a bit exasperating.

Would you like to contrast the number of visits by 'US Dignitaries' to Pakistan, with those of 'Pakistani Dignitaries' to the US?

Are Petraeus and other US military leaders not visiting Pakistan at almost exactly the same time?

Who is expecting whom to 'hotfoot for every little thing to the other country'?

I would expect a man of your experience and education to not throw around pointless canards, and actually engage in constructive, non-inflammatory discourse, and help educate and inform other posters on the forum.

 

[muse]

Bilal

I think the way you have presented the meeting, does not do credit to the context in which the meeting is/was being held.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It's worth pointing out that US papers, certainly not the mouth piece if the US intelligence community, the NYT, have had any comment on the Pasha visit - readers will agree that this is itself, rather curious -- Pakistani papers, particularly the Dawn, have printed articles that the mission of Gen. Pasha was successful in that a anonymous US official is quoted suggesting that the intelligence relationship is now back on track -- now if it turns out that the Pakistan army, while saying it will not allow clandestine CIA operations on Pakistani soil, will have agreed to all CIA conditions for the resumption of military aid, then perhaps the sense of betrayal within the Pakistani population, as expressed in the media, will increase and be sharper - after all, it's not like all media can be threatened or all journalists murdered?

I don't understand your criticizm here - are you forgetting that the ISI and PA, almost immediately after the Abbottabad raid, had argued that it was open to 'mutually agreed upon and authorized intelligence and military operations', but it would not accept 'clandestine US intelligence and military' operations.

So, if by 'agreeing to all CIA conditions' you refer to the above, then your criticism is misplaced, since that was the ISI/PA position long before the aid cancellation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is a consistent pattern that Gen. Shuja Pasha is glorified always quoting un-named sources (who hence cannot be verified). The new emanates from select channels and nothing of this sort is verified by the other negotiating party = US in this case. The same was the case in the Parliament presentation leaks about the OBL raid and also in the last visit of Shuja Pasha to US.

He could might well have worn chaddi over shalwar and fished a submarine out of the water with the little finger! (if the need of that being shown via un-named sources ever arises!)

Best to take all this journalism with a load of salt and wait for the facts to appear and get in play.

I assume you would apply the same standard to 'unknown sources' making wild allegations against Pakistan in the US media as well.

 

[53fd]

Bilal

I think the way you have presented the meeting, does not do credit to the context in which the meeting is/was being held.

A point to ponder on: "who do you think really 'needs' the $800 million"?

What does the US get out to Pakistan taking the $800 million from them? And likewise, what does the Pakistan Army really gain from taking the $800 million from the US? What is the purpose behind the $800 million for the US?

If the $800 million aid resumes, who 'wins'? Who gains more? These are the questions one needs to answer. I think Maleeha Lodhi does a pretty good job answering these questions.

 

[muse]

I don't understand your criticizm here - are you forgetting that the ISI and PA, almost immediately after the Abbottabad raid, had argued that it was open to 'mutually agreed upon and authorized intelligence and military operations', but it would not accept 'clandestine US intelligence and military' operations.

So, if by 'agreeing to all CIA conditions' you refer to the above, then your criticism is misplaced, since that was the ISI/PA position long before the aid cancellation.

AM

If the US can now argue and show that it no longer needs visas for their personnel and the argument can be made that the trainers are not needed - well that would raise the question as to why these are no longer problems -- and of course if the answer to any of these is that the CIA visas were granted and the trainer accepted - well, I think that will be very unpopular and a betrayal.

Either there has to be a explanation why the CIA personnel and Trainers are not a problem any longer - you see what I'm getting at?

If the $800 million aid resumes, who 'wins'? Who gains more? These are the questions one needs to answer. I think Maleeha Lodhi does a pretty good job answering these questions.

I have read her on this, what I am pointing towards is how the Pakistanis will square this - after all why are the CIA personnel no longer a probelm, and how did the trainers issue resolved?

 

[53fd]

AM

If the US can now argue and show that it no longer needs visas for their personnel and the argument can be made that the trainers are not needed - well that would raise the question as to why these are no longer problems -- and of course if the answer to any of these is that the CIA visas were granted and the trainer accepted - well, I think that will be very unpopular and a betrayal.

Either there has to be a explanation why the CIA personnel and Trainers are not a problem any longer - you see what I'm getting at?


I have read her on this, what I am pointing towards is how the Pakistanis will square this - after all why are the CIA personnel no longer a probelm, and how did the trainers issue resolved?

I understand what you are alluding to. You are saying that there was a 'conflict' between the US & Pakistan over the presence of military trainers in Pakistan before the meeting, which was holding up $800 million of the military aid. After the meeting, an unnamed US official has said the meeting 'had resolved the issue'. Alluding to your assumption that Pakistan had accepted certain conditions from the CIA, that would allow the US to resume the $800 million of the military aid to Pakistan.

Now I have two objections to your line of thinking. Number one: there are other unresolved issues in the Pakistan-US relationship, such as how to tackle the insurgent groups in the FATA that are causing trouble to both Pakistan, & the US in Afghanistan. In fact, I would argue that the Pakistan Army operations in Kurram & Mohmand agencies, along with the US drone strikes in North & South Waziristan are actually working in tandem, through the collaboration of the US & Pakistan. These two operations are not 'overriding' each other, 'minding their own business' ('not serving as a hindrance to each other'), & taking care of the situation. I would call these two operations a successful collaboration between the US & Pakistan. The problem arises when for some inexplicable reason, the US starts to mistrusts Pakistan, & levies baseless accusations at them. That's a different matter though.

My definition of a successful meeting would be developments like these, where Pakistan & the US are working together on points of mutual interests, rather than letting the mistrust & the accusations derail their relationship, because quite frankly, neither can afford this derailment right now. My definition of a failed (or failing) relationship is when the Pakistan Defense Minister threatens to withdraw the troops from FATA, which would pose huge problems for both Pakistan & the US.

Both Pakistan & the US need each other, because the problem is that the insurgent groups in the FATA & Eastern Afghanistan are deeply rooted into their respective societies, coupled with the fact that there is an open border between Pakistan & Afghanistan, Pakistan does not have the resources to tackle all these problems alone. Hence, Pakistan needs the US in that department. The US, while it has the necessary resources, does not have the 'connections' & 'strategic leverage' that Pakistan has in the AfPak region, so it needs Pakistan there. Hence in conclusion, both Pakistan & the US need each other, whether they like it or not.

Number two: as I have already mentioned, is the $800 million military aid really in the favor of Pakistan?

 

[muse]

Ok - fair enough - let me point to something and get your input -- these operations in agencies other than NWA and in particular from Kunar and Nuristan, what if these are actually a AQ led diversion ?

If yes, then the question of "other unresolved problems" would seem to not have merit - after all what other unresolved problems?

"US and Pakistan need each other" -- I just want to understand the substance of this, don't get me wrong - I want to understand because I have not read it anywhere or heard it anywhere, what is the substance of this assertion? Need each other - why? to do what?

Look what i'm pointing to is that these two countries have parallel objectives - Us objectives in Afghanistan are a threat to Pakistan and Pakistani objectives there are perceived as a threat to the US - so what is this need thing? Disrupt dismatle and destroy AQ - Ok, got it but again, we have the same goal between Pakistan and China and Pakistan and Iran -- what's so special about the US?? Who said US$$$??

 

[Omar1984]

He should not go. Americans can be very manipulative, and will try their hardest to persuade the ISI chief to work for America's interests that will harm Pakistan's interests in the long-term.

 

[53fd]

these operations in agencies other than NWA and in particular from Kunar and Nuristan, what if these are actually a AQ led diversion ?

Pardon me, I did not understand this statement, or what you are alluding to. If you could explain it to me more clearly, I would appreciate that.

"US and Pakistan need each other" -- I just want to understand the substance of this, don't get me wrong - I want to understand because I have not read it anywhere or heard it anywhere, what is the substance of this assertion? Need each other - why? to do what?

Both Pakistan & the US have some mutual interests in the region, such as the US vacating from Afghanistan post 2014, & both Pakistan & the US need each other for that. Pakistan also needs the US to not be a nuisance in the region, so that Pakistan can tackle the terrorist groups in the FATA effectively, having the support of the Pakistani citizens. The US also needs Pakistan to not be a nuisance in the region, so that the US can tackle the terrorist groups in South, East & N.Afghanistan effectively.

Pakistan lacks the resources needed to tackle all the insurgency groups in the AfPak region. While the US is a super rich Western power with more than adequate resources, what it lacks (which Pakistan has) is 'leverage' & connections on the ground in the AfPak region. So essentially, if both Pakistan & the US can work together, focusing on their strengths, rather than trying to undermine each other, they can achieve their mutual interests in the region. This is what I mean by a balanced relationship.

Look what i'm pointing to is that these two countries have parallel objectives - Us objectives in Afghanistan are a threat to Pakistan and Pakistani objectives there are perceived as a threat to the US - so what is this need thing? Disrupt dismatle and destroy AQ - Ok, got it but again, we have the same goal between Pakistan and China and Pakistan and Iran -- what's so special about the US?? Who said US$$$??

There have been parallel, conflicting interests for the CIA & the ISI in the past as well, & nothing can change the fact that they exist right now as well. The important thing is not to let the conflicts threaten the overall relationship (it is extremely hard though, of course), & work together on the mutual interests. The problems arise when you cannot even work on the mutual interests together.

Look at the overall picture. It is in both the interests of the US & Pakistan that the US withdraws its troops from Afghanistan. This is the main objective for both the agencies. The differences arise on who should govern Afghanistan once the US leaves. The US is fine negotiating with the Quetta Shoora & Mullah Omar, but it does not want to negotiate with the Haqqani network (& wants to root them out), as they have ties with Al-Qaeda. Pakistan wants the US to negotiate with the Haqqani network. Now, both of these stances look contradictory, 180 degrees apart.

However, what would happen if the US stops bombarding the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, & Pakistan can convince the Haqqani network to distance themselves from the Al-Qaeda (as they are a threat to Pakistan as well)? Just a food for thought.

 

[muse]

It has been suggested that the AQ is behind TTP attacks from Kunar and Nuristan - that the AQ have planned to keep the Pakistan army busy there and therefore unable to focus on NWA

When the bombs start going off in Pakistani cities the US will what? offer sympathies?? Honestly they will what? See they are gone for the most part - will they get their bases in Afghanistan? I think so, there is no way the US armed forces and really the entire defense establishment will evacuate Afghanistan completely - remember Iran? They've got some Iranians to kill, replace the mullah regime, set themselves up there as well, 3 wars 4 wars so why not a fifth or a sixth? Trust me Obama is no different from the Neocons and in a way, from their point of view - really where will they go from Afghanistan, to Israel?? They are despised inthe entire region, where ever they go, it's the kiss of death

 

[53fd]

It has been suggested that the AQ is behind TTP attacks from Kunar and Nuristan - that the AQ have planned to keep the Pakistan army busy there and therefore unable to focus on NWA

When the bombs start going off in Pakistani cities the US will what? offer sympathies?? Honestly they will what? See they are gone for the most part - will they get their bases in Afghanistan? I think so, there is no way the US armed forces and really the entire defense establishment will evacuate Afghanistan completely - remember Iran? They've got some Iranians to kill, replace the mullah regime, set themselves up there as well, 3 wars 4 wars so why not a fifth or a sixth? Trust me Obama is no different from the Neocons and in a way, from their point of view - really where will they go from Afghanistan, to Israel?? They are despised inthe entire region, where ever they go, it's the kiss of death

As I said, it can be argued that the current Pakistan Army operations in Kurram & Mohmand, & the US drones operations in South & North Waziristan are actually working in tandem, "whether that is a (an intentionally) 'planned' strategy or not". So, even though the Pakistan Army is not able to focus on North Waziristan, the US drone strikes seem to be doing the job, & I believe the terrorist networks that threaten Pakistan are getting seriously damaged. The violence is coming down from the last 2 years.

The conflicting interests arrive when the CIA & ISI cannot come to an agreement on who should be in charge of Afghanistan once the US leaves Afghanistan. The US is despised in the region, everyone knows that, even the Americans know that, so it is in everyone's interest that the US troops leave Afghanistan.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Would you like to contrast the number of visits by 'US Dignitaries' to Pakistan, with those of 'Pakistani Dignitaries' to the US?

Are Petraeus and other US military leaders not visiting Pakistan at almost exactly the same time?

Who is expecting whom to 'hotfoot for every little thing to the other country'?

I would expect a man of your experience and education to not throw around pointless canards, and actually engage in constructive, non-inflammatory discourse, and help educate and inform other posters on the forum.

The US Generals come over to hector Pakistan and mostly to 'advise' how the Pakistan Army is to operate! That is what the media informs.

I concede that the US Pakistan relation does not concern me directly, but the way in which the US is handling Pakistan does agitate me because of the manner they want to keep the upper hand even though it is they who require Pakistan, if they want to carry on with the action in Afghanistan.

Just take the last few month events. The US is doing exactly what they want. Ek to chori, upar se sina jori!!

They cut military aid and then within a few days carry out a devastating Drone attack!!

Has Pakistan stopped even the logistics passing through Pakistan in retaliation? No. Not even spoken about it.

So why should Pasha go? Just to tell them that CIA rings will be busted?

That is hardly a reason to go. Or is it? That is the question.

I say it is time to catch the bull by the horns!